Sunday, August 30, 2009

NY Times (Intentionally?) Flubs Again

This morning's NY Times has an article that is so flagrantly wrong on the facts that one wonders if anyone is minding the store there. In an effort to show that the entire deficit expansion over the next ten years has nothing to do with Obama, the Times article asserts that the Obama Administration estimate of $ 9 Trillion in additional deficits over the next ten years includes "adjustments" that any president would make -- Democrat or Republican.

The article, written by Jackie Calmes, says that the $ 9 trillion estimate assumes the following:

1) extending the Bush tax cuts
2) adjusting the AMT for inflation
3) Blocking cuts mandated for doctor's Medicare reimbursements.

As usual, with NY Times articles, the truth is the exact opposite. Obama's $ 9 trillion number assumes that:

1) Bust tax cuts are eliminated
2) There will be no AMT adjustments
3) There will be huge cuts in doctor's medicare reimbursements

So, once again, when one reads the NY Times, whenever it says, "X is true," make the usual correction and assume that "X is not true." It works almost every time with the NY Times.

As if outright misstatements of facts are not sufficient, the article ends with the following (political) statement (in an ostensible news article):

"As for Obama's big-ticket proposals, notably health care and energy policy overhauls, those do not add to the deficits under the agencies analyses because he has proposed savings and tax increases to offset their costs."

Is the above statement taken directly from Democratic Party political manuals? It is completely absurd. Even the Congressional Budget Office (controlled by the Democratic Party) estimates that Obama's health care plan will cost $ 1.6 Trillion in additional deficits, even with Obama's ephemeral cost-savings ideas included. What "agencies analyses" is Jackie Calmes speaking about. She doesn't say (for good reason, one presumes).

The NY Times has hit a new low for inaccurate news reporting with this misleading article.

No comments: